In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities Litigation

Filing 61

Objection re: #60 Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s), Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s),, Order on Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff(s) Partial Objection of Lead Plaintiff Davis to the October 5, 2009 Order. Document filed by Neville Seymour Davis. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Chang, Albert)

Repex Ventures S.A v. Madoff et al

Doc. 61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE HERALD, PRIMEO, AND THEMA FUNDS SECURITIES LITIGATION ECF Case Case No. 09 Civ. 0289 (RMB) (HBP)

PARTIAL OBJECTION OF LEAD PLAINTIFF NEVILLE SEYMOUR DAVIS TO THE OCTOBER 5, 2009 ORDER APPOINTING LEAD COUNSEL Lead Plaintiff Neville Seymour Davis partially objects to the Court's October 5, 2009 Order (the "Order") and respectfully requests the appointment of Johnson Bottini, LLP as Lead Counsel as follows: I. BACKGROUND 1. In the Order, the Court appointed Mr. Davis as Lead Plaintiff in Perrone v.

Benbassat, No. 09 Civ. 2558 (RMB) (HBP). 2. The Court also appointed Mr. Davis's proposed Liaison Counsel, Murray, Frank

& Sailer LLP, as Lead Counsel in the Perrone action on the basis that "only one lead attorney is necessary." Dkt. No. 60 at 17.1 3. Mindful of the fact that Mr. Davis had requested that Johnson Bottini, LLP be

appointed Lead Counsel, the Court granted him leave to make objections regarding counsel appointment. See id. n.11. 4. After having carefully reviewed the Order, Mr. Davis has decided to (a) withdraw

his previous request to appoint Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP as Liaison Counsel; and (b) request that the Court approve his selection of Johnson Bottini, LLP as sole Lead Counsel.

All citations to the docket refer to Repex Ventures S.A. v. Madoff, No. 09 Civ. 0289 (RMB) (HBP).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

5.

In support of his request, Mr. Davis submits (a) a Declaration dated October 9,

2009, attached to this partial objection as Exhibit A; and (b) a proposed order attached as Exhibit B. II. ANALYSIS 6. 7. The Court should grant Mr. Davis's request for three reasons. First, as the Court recognized (Dkt. No. 60 at 6), Mr. Davis is entitled to "select

and retain counsel to represent the class," subject to the Court's approval. 15 U.S.C. § 78u4(a)(3)(B)(v). 8. Second, in similar cases, this Court has approved lead plaintiffs' choices of lead

counsel based on the chosen law firms' qualifications, regardless of whether they are headquartered in New York. See, e.g., Caiafa v. Sea Containers Ltd., Nos. 06 Civ. 2565 (RMB) et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57776, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2006) (Berman, J.) (approving lead plaintiff's choice of a Philadelphia-based law firm as lead counsel). And as demonstrated in its firm resume, Johnson Bottini, LLP has in-depth experience in litigating securities class actions and has played a leadership role in numerous complex cases across the country, including cases in this District. See Dkt. No. 40 Ex. E. 9. Here, approval of Mr. Davis's selection of lead counsel is particularly appropriate

because, as demonstrated in his October 9, 2009 Declaration (Ex. A) and his May 15, 2009 declaration (Dkt. No. 50), he has been working closely with attorneys at Johnson Bottini, LLP on this litigation and established a protocol to (a) manage counsel; and (b) "ensure that the attorneys' fees and expenses in this litigation will be fair and reasonable." Dkt. No. 50 ¶ 7. 10. Third, Mr. Davis makes this request because he shares the Court's concern over

the potential inefficiency resulting from appointing multiple law firms as co-lead counsel. Ex. A ¶¶ 2-4. 2

III.

CONCLUSION 11. The Court should grant Mr. Davis's request and amend the Order to reflect its

approval of his selection of counsel. See McNally v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 414 F.3d 352, 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (stating that district courts have "the authority, as with any interlocutory order, `to revise its order at any time before the entry of final judgment'"). 12. Accordingly, Mr. Davis respectfully submits for the Court's signature a proposed

order appointing Johnson Bottini, LLP as sole Lead Counsel in the Perrone action (Ex. B). Dated: October 12, 2009 Respectfully submitted JOHNSON BOTTINI, LLP s/ Albert Y. Chang Frank J. Johnson Francis A. Bottini, Jr. Albert Y. Chang (AC-5415) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Proposed Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Neville Seymour Davis

3